Good topic. Doubt Neteller will comment on this particular Sick case until the decision is final. Even then they may not. As far as continuing to do business with stiff books would be interesting to hear what they would say. I know at least in Securebuxx case they did take down a couple of books that were known stiffs. I don't know if that is policy or they just did it because we were raising hell. I would hope Neteller doesn't have any policies that would stop them from doing the same. No reason to help stiff books get access to a players money.
Will copy this thread and send an e-mail along to see what they will say. Thanks guys, nice questions.
Will copy this thread and send an e-mail along to see what they will say. Thanks guys, nice questions.
Outstanding topic. So much so in fact, that I am kicking myself for not having thought about it myself.
I think the internet money-movers are the answer to fairness in bookmaking. These guys have the power to keep things in line from both the players' and the bookies' points of view. The only danger is that they don't abuse this power, but I think their interests are perfectly aligned with using this power properly.
I have been thinking a lot about Neteller and what an unbelievably successful and promising business it must be. They also have a couple of weaknesses to exploit and so if I were ever going to start my own business, a competitor to Neteller would be my number one choice.
Some weaknesses include bad responsiveness to email inquiries, exclusion of customers based on country of origin, stupid system with netpoints, inflexible and low transaction limits, inequitable fee structure for certain services, and failure to get involved in cases of serious cheating or theft.
In this last category I would certainly not recommend radical measures. On the contrary, Neteller should exercise extreme care before taking any measures whatsoever. But what they should do is get involved on the forums, become interested in what some of their clients are doing, specifically in cases where serious crimes are being alleged. They should provide data to reliable third parties (such as the mods of this forum) to be used to establish the truth or falsehood of the allegations. And in the case of a legitimate complaint, they should freeze the account of the book (or player) in question and work towards finding a consensus as to what should be done with those funds.
Remember that money sent to Neteller has two rightful owners -- the sender and the receiver -- so it is not always cut and dried who's money it really is. Neteller needs to get involved when the ownership issue of funds gets called into question.
Excellent topic -- I really this develops into something tangible.
I think the internet money-movers are the answer to fairness in bookmaking. These guys have the power to keep things in line from both the players' and the bookies' points of view. The only danger is that they don't abuse this power, but I think their interests are perfectly aligned with using this power properly.
I have been thinking a lot about Neteller and what an unbelievably successful and promising business it must be. They also have a couple of weaknesses to exploit and so if I were ever going to start my own business, a competitor to Neteller would be my number one choice.
Some weaknesses include bad responsiveness to email inquiries, exclusion of customers based on country of origin, stupid system with netpoints, inflexible and low transaction limits, inequitable fee structure for certain services, and failure to get involved in cases of serious cheating or theft.
In this last category I would certainly not recommend radical measures. On the contrary, Neteller should exercise extreme care before taking any measures whatsoever. But what they should do is get involved on the forums, become interested in what some of their clients are doing, specifically in cases where serious crimes are being alleged. They should provide data to reliable third parties (such as the mods of this forum) to be used to establish the truth or falsehood of the allegations. And in the case of a legitimate complaint, they should freeze the account of the book (or player) in question and work towards finding a consensus as to what should be done with those funds.
Remember that money sent to Neteller has two rightful owners -- the sender and the receiver -- so it is not always cut and dried who's money it really is. Neteller needs to get involved when the ownership issue of funds gets called into question.
Excellent topic -- I really this develops into something tangible.
Maybe I'm the only one on the opposite end of this, but I don't see why Neteller should get involved. I think of Neteller as just a money transfer service: in other words it's just like I handed cash to a book. Once that cash is there, whatever happens after that is irrelevant. It's up to me to use discretion in deciding who I want to send money to.
I can't see why Neteller should (or would want to) embroil themselves in the politics of the offshores, especially since their are so many crooks on both sides.
Does Western Union get involved in these kind of disputes?
Myself, I'm just happy that we have a realtively reliable way to transfer money from place to place.
I can't see why Neteller should (or would want to) embroil themselves in the politics of the offshores, especially since their are so many crooks on both sides.
Does Western Union get involved in these kind of disputes?
Myself, I'm just happy that we have a realtively reliable way to transfer money from place to place.
Drunk - I see your point but maybe working here has shown me the other side. You can call a book like BetFlamingo and ask why they won't pay the players they owe and they will say "because we don't have to". Then laugh at you over the phone and brag that they are still recieving post up money!!? Maybe it is because of that but I do not think any of these services should not assist scammers any way possible. I am not talking about getting involved in petty complaints but when there is black and white evidence a book is stealing then I feel a company like Neteller should not send money to these people in any fashion. Plenty of other books out there to make some cash on, legit ones.
Anyway we all have our opinions and I am not saying mine is right but it is at least worth asking them about it. As players we need to use every tool we can to look out after each other and make it harder on the scammers.
Anyway we all have our opinions and I am not saying mine is right but it is at least worth asking them about it. As players we need to use every tool we can to look out after each other and make it harder on the scammers.
Dante, thanks, sounds cool
drunk,
The issue is not so simple because Neteller is providing key infrastructure for crooks to commit crimes whether they like it or not. They cannot separate this element from the rest of their business.
It's as if you were a transportation company and you knew one of your passengers was smuggling contraband. You'd have a moral obligation to notify the authorities or else you could be considered an accomplice to the crime. Of course you could SAY you didn't know but you'd be lying and your own integrity would become suspect.
I personally don't do business with people who I know are crooks. I sometimes go to great lengths and turn down nice offers just to do things cleanly. I am convinced that in this Darwinian, dog-eat-dog world the clean way is the most profitable in the long run, even if it is usually costly in the short run. This is true in general and in the specific case of Neteller as well.
I don't think Neteller should get involved in freezing crooked accounts because of any pressure they are under from any watchdog or other authority. I think they should do it because it is in their best interest to do so. It is an extra security measure for their customers and it would make their services that much more attractive.
drunk,
The issue is not so simple because Neteller is providing key infrastructure for crooks to commit crimes whether they like it or not. They cannot separate this element from the rest of their business.
It's as if you were a transportation company and you knew one of your passengers was smuggling contraband. You'd have a moral obligation to notify the authorities or else you could be considered an accomplice to the crime. Of course you could SAY you didn't know but you'd be lying and your own integrity would become suspect.
I personally don't do business with people who I know are crooks. I sometimes go to great lengths and turn down nice offers just to do things cleanly. I am convinced that in this Darwinian, dog-eat-dog world the clean way is the most profitable in the long run, even if it is usually costly in the short run. This is true in general and in the specific case of Neteller as well.
I don't think Neteller should get involved in freezing crooked accounts because of any pressure they are under from any watchdog or other authority. I think they should do it because it is in their best interest to do so. It is an extra security measure for their customers and it would make their services that much more attractive.
NETeller has no business or obligation to "police" the the industry. They are simply a middle-broker. It is my responsibility to make educated decisions with my money. Does your stockbroker "police" the markets for you as well? Nope, it's none of their business where I choose to put my money (sh*t, I think even Enron still trades on the Pink Sheets at .00003 pennies/share).
... and if they were to simply "cut-off" a slow-pay situation, they would only exacerbate problems for both the book and players who want to get paid.
This not NETeller's business, nor should it be. IMO.
... and if they were to simply "cut-off" a slow-pay situation, they would only exacerbate problems for both the book and players who want to get paid.
This not NETeller's business, nor should it be. IMO.
It is not good business IMO for any of these places to do business with proven scams, but....
The problem that may arise is how do these places know for a fact that the books are scams. If there was a serious stance against scams from these organizations, then they would have to devote employees to investigate complaints, thus limiting profits along with reduced profits that would occur from removing businesses they feel are scams.
Tough issue for Neteller here I think. If they wanted to step up and do this it would harm their profits for sure, while working harder.
Imagine how many players would instruct Neteller a book was a scam when minor disagreements occur.
The problem that may arise is how do these places know for a fact that the books are scams. If there was a serious stance against scams from these organizations, then they would have to devote employees to investigate complaints, thus limiting profits along with reduced profits that would occur from removing businesses they feel are scams.
Tough issue for Neteller here I think. If they wanted to step up and do this it would harm their profits for sure, while working harder.
Imagine how many players would instruct Neteller a book was a scam when minor disagreements occur.
Neteller doesn't even bother to tell us about what the Maryland law (is) or (was) that caused them to stop the service in Md. (Just a corporate decision that ----- and they are not a Md. Company. HELLO? Did Maryland just find that out or did they pass a NEW law aimed at Neteller? NO comment about that.
I like Neteller--but am becoming increasingly worried!
I like Neteller--but am becoming increasingly worried!
si1,
In the brokerage industry they have the SEC who does that. And since the folks at the SEC don't work for free, the service is paid for by brokers and investors who presumably took part in the formation of the SEC, if only by way of voting for a government that created it.
I am not suggesting Neteller do all the services of the SEC or do any proactive policing for that matter. There is a huge spectrum between ignoring the issue completely and being an all-out police force. I am suggesting a point on the spectrum which is 95% of the way towards doing nothing and 5% in the direction of all-out policing. That is, they should do absolutely nothing until a case becomes very, very obvious on its own. Then they have to decide whether they want to continue to help criminals, or not.
This is an improvement over a 100% do nothing stance IMO given the absence of regulation.
And I agree it is better to err on the side of inaction, but some action in the most glaring cases has to better than nothing.
For example, when a book obviously falls into the rogue category they could simply create an automatic message to anyone who wants to send them money that they have taken a decision to stop doing business with this book and provide a link or two showing some of the background discussion. And any monies they have on account at the moment they realize their rogueness could simply be returned to the sender with a brief note of explanation. This is not a huge amount of work and the only people it will piss off are the rogue sportsbooks. The customers who get such a note or a refund will surely be grateful without exception. I don't see how such a policy can be bad for anyone except the crooks.
In the brokerage industry they have the SEC who does that. And since the folks at the SEC don't work for free, the service is paid for by brokers and investors who presumably took part in the formation of the SEC, if only by way of voting for a government that created it.
I am not suggesting Neteller do all the services of the SEC or do any proactive policing for that matter. There is a huge spectrum between ignoring the issue completely and being an all-out police force. I am suggesting a point on the spectrum which is 95% of the way towards doing nothing and 5% in the direction of all-out policing. That is, they should do absolutely nothing until a case becomes very, very obvious on its own. Then they have to decide whether they want to continue to help criminals, or not.
This is an improvement over a 100% do nothing stance IMO given the absence of regulation.
And I agree it is better to err on the side of inaction, but some action in the most glaring cases has to better than nothing.
For example, when a book obviously falls into the rogue category they could simply create an automatic message to anyone who wants to send them money that they have taken a decision to stop doing business with this book and provide a link or two showing some of the background discussion. And any monies they have on account at the moment they realize their rogueness could simply be returned to the sender with a brief note of explanation. This is not a huge amount of work and the only people it will piss off are the rogue sportsbooks. The customers who get such a note or a refund will surely be grateful without exception. I don't see how such a policy can be bad for anyone except the crooks.
Actually, after some further thought, I am going to flip-flop (somewhat) on this issue...
As far as I know, Neteller only transfers to companies with "Merchant codes". In that case, assigning a merchant code is a "seal of approval" from Neteller. As such, Neteller should only give merchant codes out to companies that are honest and trustworthy.
If Neteller does "person-to-person" transfers, like Paypal used to, then I can see how regulation would be difficult, and in this case, Neteller has no right to regulate anyone. But if they are going to approve merchants, they need to stand behind their approvals.
The best solution would be for Neteller to inactivate the account of any merchant who is unfairly witholding money.
Then the real question becomes...how do you know when someone is witholding money fairly or unfairly?
As far as I know, Neteller only transfers to companies with "Merchant codes". In that case, assigning a merchant code is a "seal of approval" from Neteller. As such, Neteller should only give merchant codes out to companies that are honest and trustworthy.
If Neteller does "person-to-person" transfers, like Paypal used to, then I can see how regulation would be difficult, and in this case, Neteller has no right to regulate anyone. But if they are going to approve merchants, they need to stand behind their approvals.
The best solution would be for Neteller to inactivate the account of any merchant who is unfairly witholding money.
Then the real question becomes...how do you know when someone is witholding money fairly or unfairly?
The SEC and NASD do not regulate Pink Sheet or Bulletin Board stocks, and only recently did the NASD even begin requiring OTC BB stocks to report financial statements. Hell, you can even buy a bankrupt company's stock if you've lost your mind. Your broker is not to blame for your stupidity.
If you want to buy such stocks you can and should have that ability. But is your broker responsible for such behavior? No, they simply are not. "YOU" are responsible for doing your own homework.
And this is especially true when "investing" your cash in an offshore book.
If you want to buy such stocks you can and should have that ability. But is your broker responsible for such behavior? No, they simply are not. "YOU" are responsible for doing your own homework.
And this is especially true when "investing" your cash in an offshore book.
Si1,
There is another problem with the brokerage analogy and that is that the parties of the transaction are different in this case. The company (like Enron) who commits a crime is not a party in the transaction of a broker. The shares are being bought and sold but the money does not change hands between a customer and Enron. Rather, it is between two unrelated parties who will never see each other again and never have a chance to commit crimes against one another.
And when a share plummets because of a crime by the company, the shares lose value equally, not according to which shareholders the company wants to screw.
If it were only a case of sportsbooks going bankrupt I would agree with you -- let the buyer beware. But here we have books who have stolen from some customers and continue to stay in business accepting funds from other customers. This makes it totally different IMO.
Apples and oranges.
There is another problem with the brokerage analogy and that is that the parties of the transaction are different in this case. The company (like Enron) who commits a crime is not a party in the transaction of a broker. The shares are being bought and sold but the money does not change hands between a customer and Enron. Rather, it is between two unrelated parties who will never see each other again and never have a chance to commit crimes against one another.
And when a share plummets because of a crime by the company, the shares lose value equally, not according to which shareholders the company wants to screw.
If it were only a case of sportsbooks going bankrupt I would agree with you -- let the buyer beware. But here we have books who have stolen from some customers and continue to stay in business accepting funds from other customers. This makes it totally different IMO.
Apples and oranges.
